METHODS AND APPROACHES

 

When teachers work on syllabus, they have to make methodological choices: they have to specify the procedures they intend to use during the teaching process. The specification of the contents to be dealt with is not sufficient.

During the last century, different methods and approaches followed one another (a method refers to a set of procedures involved in the teaching course, while an approach is a more theoretical concept). Among other contrasting elements, the various methods and approaches differed from one another in the different relevance given to the four basic skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing) and on the stress given to linguistic competence and communicative competence.

To begin with, let’s have a look at the Grammar-translation approach, an extension to modern languages of the approach used to teach classical languages. It focuses on the reading of literature, which is viewed as the final goal in language courses. In class there is little use of the L₂: students are asked to read and translate litearary passages (often taken from classical texts) and to learn by heart long lists of new terms. They have to know grammar rules and paradigms which are taught deductively.  A consequence of this approach is the fact that, in the end, students possess a mere linguistic competence, at the expense of the communicative competence. They are not able to speak or to write in the target language, having merely learned to read foreign texts.

The Direct Method developed as a reaction against the previous approach, which failed in promoting students’ use of the L₂ in a communicative way. Language is presented through dialogues and anectodes, which tend to enhance students’ listening and speaking skills. According this new perspective, teacher has to be a native or a native-like speaker of the target language. As a consequence, students are supposed to speak only in L₂. When they do not understand something, the teacher is allowed to use actions and pictures in order to convey meaning. Grammar is not considered as important as in the Grammar-translation approach:  it has to be taught inductively while literary texts can be read only for pleasure.

The Direct Method, which focused on language use rather than on language usage, was rejected by the Reading Approach, that considered it as impracticable, because of the lack of teachers who were native or native-like speakers. This new approach, developed in the U.S.A., considers as the main goal of a language course the development of students’ reading skill. In order to do it, the teacher’s aim (he hasn’t to be a native or a native-like speaker) is to make students deal with grammar structures, which are considered as sufficient to promote reading and understanding of a text.

Around the ‛40s a deep interest towards oral-aural skills developed. It was then that the Audiolingual Method began to assert itself. Based on Bloomfield’s structural linguistics and behaviourist psychology it took some elements from the Direct Method. It consideres language learning process as habit formation, so it focuses attention on imitation and memorisation. Language is presented through dialogues. For what concerns the skills implied, they are sequenced: from the oral ones (listening and speaking) to the written ones (reading and writing). More  attention is paid to the pronunciation (error must be avoided) at the expense of meaning. Let’s think to the massive use of mechanical drills: students are asked to repeat and apply linguistic structures without –sometimes- understanding the meaning of sentences they are working on.

The Cognitive Code reacted against the Audiolingual Approach, primarily because, according the new perspective, language acquisition process is an inner device, not habit formation. Language learning process, as a consequence, is considered as the acquisition of rules which allow students to create infinite utterances. C. C. consideres the error as inevitable in the learning process and perfection in pronunciation as an unrealistic goal to be carried out. It focuses on the need of communication (the use of the language) in language courses, an aim which can be achieved only if students understand what they are doing. While in the classes that adopted the Audiolingual method, the four basic skills were sequenced, the Cognitive Code give them the same importance (writing and reading are considered as important as listening and speaking). The teacher is not a trainer; his/her task is to help students (who are responsible of their own learning) in their attempts to approximate to the L₂. What we can notice in the above-mentioned perspectives is the lack of affective considerations.

The situation changed when the Affective/Humanistic Approaches began to assert themselves. Until then, nobody had stressed the importance of the affective component in the learning process. The A./H.A. understood that students, as well as teachers, have to be considered as human beings, each of them with his/her own characteristics and feelings. They need to work in a relaxed atmosphere, which is more important than methods and materials: to do it, students are required to work in group. An element in common with the C. C. is the importance given to meaningful communication, which is seen as the main goal of a language course. Teacher is viewed as a counsellor and a facilitator.

On the other hand, Functional / ESP Approach focuses on students’ needs: before making choices about materials and procedures, the teacher has to consider what students need to be able to do with the target language (reading, listening, speaking or writing). It depends on their field of specialization, the social situation, the communicative function, etc. For what concerns the skills worked out, it depends on what students need to do with the language: if the aim is to speak in the L₂, the teacher has to begin working on oral skills, at the expense of the written ones. Language is presented through authentic material and, when necessary, students receive explanations and instructions in the L₁. For this reason teacher has to be fluent in the target language as well as in students’ native language.

More recent methods are Suggestology or Suggestopedia, Total Physical Response, Community language Learning and the Silent way. The first one focuses on reading: it makes use of dialogues, read, translated and reread by the teacher and then reread by the students at bedtime. This is seen as a useful way of memorizing the language. At the other hand, Total Physical Response gives more importance to oral skills: teacher gives instructions in the L₂, then performs the activities. Students have to do the same first in groups, then individually. What these two methods have in common is the importance given to class atmosphere, which has to be relaxed in order to prevent anxiety and bad feelings.

Communicative language Learning considers students as clients and teachers as consellors. The teacher translates what the students say in their L₁ and controls students errors only repeating in the correct way what students have uttered wrongly. Students learn the language repeating what the teacher has translated in the L₂. Language learning is seen as a maturation process. Also the Silent Way is based on the repetition and the application of what the teacher does with the language; learners imitate the teacher and then have the possibility of recalling what has been said during long periods of silence.

But, apart from a consideration of judgement, before making methodological choices the teacher has to consider for what purposes students are learning the target language. In this perspective also the grammar-translation approach can be considered as a “good” approach: if students’ purpose is to learn a language in order to be able to “read that language”, teacher’s work has to be focused on the reading skill.